Stephen Hahn wrote, On 15/03/07 19:20: > * Laszlo (Laca) Peter <laca at Sun.COM> [2007-03-15 10:47]: >> On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 10:36 -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: >>> * Laszlo (Laca) Peter <laca at sun.com> [2007-03-15 10:19]: >>>> On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 09:55 -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote: >>>>> I compiled it all w/ gcc; it works. Getting tools like this >>>>> into customers' hands has got to be higher on our priority list >>>>> than tilting at the one true compiler windmill. >>>> Sure thing. The problem is with the ABI differences between >>>> g++-compiled and Sun Studio-compiled c++ libs. One possibility >>>> is shipping 2 variants (/usr/lib/g++/libgtkmm-2.4.so?). >>> Do we know how many other GNOME apps/components might use gtkmm? >> http://www.gtkmm.org/extra.shtml > > Thanks. The reason I ask was to see if we could completely bury them > inside an Inkscape directory, but it appears not. One non-insane > possibility is that (unlike licensing), we could handle the name > conflict between two distinct ABI compiled libraries using > /usr/gnu/lib for the alternate C++ ABI.
Such a basic library (well, at least it's meant to be) should be compiling nicely with any C++ compiler: Sun's CC, Intel's or g++. The problem is in gtkmm (because it's gtkmm and not gtkg++), so IMO the right thing to do would be to fix all the g++-pendencies. However we have to think that they primary compiler is g++ and, as long as Sun's aren't Free Software, they won't fancy much the idea of expending a long time to fix it; so, I suppose it is up to us whether we take over this work or not. -- Greetings, alo.
